11 mentioned above (supra para. 14), the State of Trinidad and Tobago refused to recognise the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to continue processing this case. Accordingly, on February 8, 2002, the State announced that it would not attend the public hearing convened by the Court (infra paras. 47 and 49) and indicated the following: The Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago must decline the invitation of the Court to participate at the public hearing and the preliminary meeting to be held on 20-21 February, 2002 […] In taking this decision the Government of Trinidad and Tobago does not intend any discourtesy towards the Court or its distinguished and learned President. It reflects the belief of the State that, in the absence of any special agreement by the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago recognising the jurisdiction of the Court in this matter, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has no jurisdiction in respect of these cases. 17) The Inter-American Court does not agree with the reason given by the State for not appearing before this Tribunal and for not participating in the proceedings (infra paras. 38, 46, 49, 53 and 83); as it has been well established in this case, the Court, as with any other international organ with jurisdictional functions, has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence/Kompetenz-Kompetez). 11 18) As this Tribunal has indicated in its judgments on jurisdiction in the Constitutional Court and Ivcher Bronstein Cases, [t]he jurisdiction of the Court cannot be contingent upon events extraneous to its own actions. The instruments consenting to the optional clause concerning recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presuppose that the States submitting them accept the Court’s right to settle any controversy relative to its jurisdiction. An objection or any other action taken by the State for the purpose of somehow affecting the Court’s jurisdiction has no consequence whatever, as the Court retains the compétence de la compétence, as it is master of its own jurisdiction. 12 19) Likewise, the Inter-American Court reiterates that when interpreting the American Convention in accordance with the general rules of treaty interpretation enshrined in Article 31(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Treaties (hereinafter "the Vienna Convention"), and considering the object and purpose of the American Convention, the Tribunal, in the exercise of the authority conferred on it by Article 62(3) of the Convention, must act in a manner that preserves the integrity of the provisions of Article 62(1) of the Convention. It would be unacceptable to subordinate these provisions to restrictions that would render inoperative the Court’s jurisdictional role, and consequently, the human rights protection system established in the Convention. 13 The Court has the inherent authority consistent with the imperative of judicial certainty to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction. 11 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, para. 78; I/A Court H.R., Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, para. 69; and I/A Court H.R., Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, para. 69. 12 I/A Court H.R., Constitutional Court Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 33; and I/A Court H.R., Ivcher Bronstein Case. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 34. 13 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Hilaire Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, paras. 82 and 84; I/A Court H.R., Benjamin et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, paras. 73 and 75; and I/A Court H.R., Constantine et al. Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 10, paras. 73 and 75.